Guest, you brought up a point about Phoenix and the Starbucks/McDonalds that is possible the biggest issue with the NHL. Firstly, lets not forget the city of Phoenix is eating $20 million a year of losses. Until that tap runs dry the NHL really isn't taking any risk. But that is beside the point.

The reason the NHL can't cut teams is they are franchised. Each team is owned by different individuals. In fact, the NHL constitution does not allow an person or group to own more than one team. The NHL does not have the authority to just shutdown a team for losing money. Not only that, no owner is backing away with getting some kind of financial recovery.

Starbucks and McDonalds are not franchised. They are completely corporately owned as a single company. They have full control because they own each those business as one large group.

The issue that I eluded to is that the NHL is not ran by the NHL, it is ran by the BOG which is a 30 member group of all the owners. Compare that to the NFL or MLB where the commissioner's office controls most of the operations. I am not saying the NFL commissioner can shutdown a team, but they have far more control to keep owners in check than the NHL can.

Here is a story that some may already know but it is unbelievable relevant to the NHL situation. Prior to the last labour dispute in the NFL there wasn't a salary cap. However, the owners got together the year before the CBA expired and agreed they wanted a salary cap and warned teams to not front load contracts to pay out most of the money in the uncapped year (2010) and then drop substantially in the capped year(2011 and beyond). Well two of the NFL highest valued teams broke those rules. So the NFL put sanctions against the Cowboys and Redskins where they lost $36 million and $10 million respective from their salary cap split over 2012-2013.

I bring this up as there were certainly some deals(not many,but some) during this summer where NHL owners signed players to longer term deals and for more money than they are asking for in the CBA. The problem is absolutely nothing is going to happen to those owners.

The NHL office need more authority to run the league and penalize owners for stepping outside of the agreement.

Guest0657 ( )

Posted - 11/18/2012 : 18:47:04

quote:Originally posted by Guest8136The issue that I eluded to is that the NHL is not ran by the NHL, it is ran by the BOG which is a 30 member group of all the owners. Compare that to the NFL or MLB where the commissioner's office controls most of the operations. I am not saying the NFL commissioner can shutdown a team, but they have far more control to keep owners in check than the NHL can.

Here is a story that some may already know but it is unbelievable relevant to the NHL situation. Prior to the last labour dispute in the NFL there wasn't a salary cap. However, the owners got together the year before the CBA expired and agreed they wanted a salary cap and warned teams to not front load contracts to pay out most of the money in the uncapped year (2010) and then drop substantially in the capped year(2011 and beyond). Well two of the NFL highest valued teams broke those rules. So the NFL put sanctions against the Cowboys and Redskins where they lost $36 million and $10 million respective from their salary cap split over 2012-2013.

The NHL office need more authority to run the league and penalize owners for stepping outside of the agreement.

Excellent response. Thanks.

So the NHL doesn't calculate revenue or players expenses the same way as other sports, doesn't govern themselves like other sports and yet strangely wants to have the same revenue sharing percentages (or very close to it) as the other sports.

For some reason the NHL doesn't look like a duck, act like a duck or smell like a duck but wants to be called a duck. Lame.

Guest 0657, there is nothing in the first guests comments that says anything about the NHL calculating their revenues or cap system differently?? Nothing at all!! It talks about the NHL offices having more authority over the owners as something needed to secure long term sustainability.

In fact, the NFL system today (now that they are using a cap) as well as the NBA system were both developed off the system the NHL put in place in 2004. Not the exact same systems but hybrids of a salary cap system tied to revenues for the league.

The NHL built the system and now they are wanting to keep pace with what the other league are now operating. That is a 50/50 system.

PS - I did a little experiment and posted as a guest to see what kind of response I would get. Guest8136 was me. Thanks to Guest 0657 for the kind words. I don't think I would have received those same words had I posted under my log in...........

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Beans it isn't your profile that gets negative responses. That post was thoughtful where as some prior posting has been negative. I appreciate the analogy of franchise rights differing between the NHL and other business's. I didn't know the NHL didn't have the power to revoke franchises and it was up to individual franchises to close the doors. Takes away from the BOG ability to cut the dead weight. Makes it understandable why the ownership group is looking to the players, because as individual business's why float the bad business's when they have all the power to stop the losses now by closing the doors. Being that Pheonix is now league run, why dont they exercise there rights to relocate. This is one clear cut case of a failed experiment, where the league holds all the cards and could reap a windfall rather than absorb a loss. Hell even Basillie's offer to move to southern Ontario looks good right now. He went about it the wrong way by trying to force the league rather than win there permission.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Guest 0657, there is nothing in the first guests comments that says anything about the NHL calculating their revenues or cap system differently?? Nothing at all!! It talks about the NHL offices having more authority over the owners as something needed to secure long term sustainability.

In fact, the NFL system today (now that they are using a cap) as well as the NBA system were both developed off the system the NHL put in place in 2004. Not the exact same systems but hybrids of a salary cap system tied to revenues for the league.

The NHL built the system and now they are wanting to keep pace with what the other league are now operating. That is a 50/50 system.

PS - I did a little experiment and posted as a guest to see what kind of response I would get. Guest8136 was me. Thanks to Guest 0657 for the kind words. I don't think I would have received those same words had I posted under my log in...........

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Joshua, I hope you can appreciate the frustration that I show when people make posts about things they lack knowledge about. By your own admission you didn't know that the NHL offices cannot fold a franchise. It's the BOG that makes that call. Yet, you have talked at lengths about how the teams that don't make money should just move or fold.

Relocation and contraction are both covered under the NHL constitution and both clearly discuss what is required when a team is going to shut down or move. Let me provide the clarity:

Any situation impacting a Member Club (relocation, transfer/sale, termination) must meet with a minimum 3/4th of the BOG approval.

So, the NHL cannot simply move the club. Remember when the Balsillie thing was going on with Phoenix?? The BOG 'unanimously' agreed to not relocation Phoenix if a new buyer was found or negotiations were continuing.

To the point of my comments being negative??

Hello there Pot, I don't think we have met before. My name is Kettle. Nice shirt!!

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 11/19/2012 : 11:01:11

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Joshua, I hope you can appreciate the frustration that I show when people make posts about things they lack knowledge about. By your own admission you didn't know that the NHL offices cannot fold a franchise. It's the BOG that makes that call. Yet, you have talked at lengths about how the teams that don't make money should just move or fold.

Relocation and contraction are both covered under the NHL constitution and both clearly discuss what is required when a team is going to shut down or move. Let me provide the clarity:

Any situation impacting a Member Club (relocation, transfer/sale, termination) must meet with a minimum 3/4th of the BOG approval.

To the point of my comments being negative??

Not negative. Just confrontational. See the first paragraph. As an example, had this post just contained the 2nd and 3rd paragraph above, no problem. But it is that 1st paragraph that begs Josh to retort negatively.

If you look at the 8136 post, it was more in the tone of the 2nd and 3rd para than that of the 1st para.

I didn't see that as confrontational BTW, but thank you guest. I am understanding Beans point of view and frustration on some levels. To the point made, I think if Bettman brought forward to the BOG a proposal for relocation without Basillie which would strengthen the League as a whole, he would receive there support. He has the backing of the BOG on most issues, no reason to think he couldn't sway them now. Basillie was a huge part of the unanimous decision to decline. His forcefulness of where he wanted a team was another factor. The BOG are powerful men who do not like being told, this is how it is, suck it.

And if contraction was proposed in a helping the overall health of the League, Pheonix would be a no brainer. It would be harder to push this point of view, as relocation brings revenue, contraction removes a potential revenue stream and an admittance of failure.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Joshua, I hope you can appreciate the frustration that I show when people make posts about things they lack knowledge about. By your own admission you didn't know that the NHL offices cannot fold a franchise. It's the BOG that makes that call. Yet, you have talked at lengths about how the teams that don't make money should just move or fold.

Relocation and contraction are both covered under the NHL constitution and both clearly discuss what is required when a team is going to shut down or move. Let me provide the clarity:

Any situation impacting a Member Club (relocation, transfer/sale, termination) must meet with a minimum 3/4th of the BOG approval.

So, the NHL cannot simply move the club. Remember when the Balsillie thing was going on with Phoenix?? The BOG 'unanimously' agreed to not relocation Phoenix if a new buyer was found or negotiations were continuing.

To the point of my comments being negative??

Hello there Pot, I don't think we have met before. My name is Kettle. Nice shirt!!

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

I can see how the first point of my last post could have been viewed as confrontational. I guess my frustration gets the better of me at times. Great point guest, I'll do my best to take those kinds of comments out of my posts.

Getting into this Phoenix thing is getting off base. I think we all can see something has to be done with the Sun Belt teams. I think the answer is there but it's going to take some big stones for someone to step up and make it happen.

As I have said before, I like an NHL with 24 teams for not only sustainable financial pictures but also for a better quality teams on the ice. Punting 6 teams is like saying the 4th line of every NHL team is gone. Think about how much better the teams would be??? It also disolves that pesky issue with divisions and conferences and stuff.

The big problem is those owners are going to just close up shop without some kind of return on their investment. If you take the bottom 6 franchises and refund their current franchise costs (Forbes #'s) that is equal to $917 million.

So the NHL would have to dump nearly a billion to those owners losing their teams, lose another $372 mil in revenue, and the NHLPA would lose 20% of their membership.

But, the revenue would still be nearly $3 billion and at a 50/50 split the average NHL players salary would actually go UP from $2.4 million to $2.7 million(fewer players in the pot and the pot is still huge). The owners would also profiting in the neighbourhood of $400 mil a season without factoring in growth.

I know this math might sound really simple, but a system where there are fewer teams, few players, better hockey, players making more and richer owners???

Why am I not at the bargining table????

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

You're assuming the owners have not already discussed this possibility - I'd be surprised if they had not considered it, and other variants to this idea. I have no doubt that some of the owners losing money would happily fold their NHL teams in exchange for a golden handshake from the NHL - an experiment was tried, it failed, and a reasonably exit strategy is all that is required now.

The BOG has to have 3/4 agreement on relocation, but what about outright folding a team? I don't think the owners alone can fold a team, and they would need buy-in from the NHLPA - moving a team doesn't cut player jobs, but folding a team does. But if they can, all they need is the support of 22 teams to do it, which is more than they want to cut, so it could be done.

Guest0657 ( )

Posted - 11/20/2012 : 18:09:00

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Guest 0657, there is nothing in the first guests comments that says anything about the NHL calculating their revenues or cap system differently?? Nothing at all!! It talks about the NHL offices having more authority over the owners as something needed to secure long term sustainability.

In fact, the NFL system today (now that they are using a cap) as well as the NBA system were both developed off the system the NHL put in place in 2004. Not the exact same systems but hybrids of a salary cap system tied to revenues for the league.

PS - I did a little experiment and posted as a guest to see what kind of response I would get. Guest8136 was me. Thanks to Guest 0657 for the kind words. I don't think I would have received those same words had I posted under my log in...........

Well I did post the fact that they calculate revenue and expenses completely differently. Then you (as 8136) now posted how they are governed differently. See how the posts connect?

Looks like you got me. Your experiment worked really well where one was an a$$ and the other wasn't. What you need to add is a little jerkiness in your test post and see what happens.

The PA has put forward a complete proposal the league was requesting. Not a whole lot of specifics yet, but the proposal was 5 years in term, eventually ending in a 50/50 split, player salary guarantees require almost $400 million for the league over the term not against the cap, which differs by $180 million from the leagues last proposal and most of the 17 already agreed upon contractual issues during last weeks talks. The PA has put forward in the proposal limits to backdiving contracts to insure the owners cant long term a contract to schew the numbers, but the details were not provided.

Wow, the first solid proposal from the players. If this deal is 50/50 from year one with a one time Make Whole of $400 mil(give a take a few mil) the numbers will work out to very close to what the owners want.

I would still like to understand the PA's proposal for the back diving deals but this seems like something to work from.

The sad thing is it took nearly 70 days and how much garbage back and forth to get here??? Why again, didn't the NHLPA want to negotiate a year ago?? Why has it taken 70 days for the PA to come to the table with something reasonable??

I still blame the PA but this should mean we see hockey sooner than later.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 11/21/2012 : 13:20:41

quote:Originally posted by Beans15The sad thing is it took nearly 70 days and how much garbage back and forth to get here??? Why again, didn't the NHLPA want to negotiate a year ago?? Why has it taken 70 days for the PA to come to the table with something reasonable??

I still blame the PA but this should mean we see hockey sooner than later.

Why blame the PA? Like the owners were completely reasonable in their offers from the get go. Remember the owner's september proposal? What about saying a few weeks later after submitting a new proposal with the statement, "this is our best offer and all future offers aren't going to be better than this one". Liars.

Not that the players are completely blame free but it takes two to tango.

Guest, you are 100% correct. But I don't agree that both sides are equally responsible. Maybe my wording appears that I put all of the blame on the players. I don't. I put most of the blame on the players.

Let's me share why:

1 - The PA used an option to extend the CBA for another year. At the time they exercised the option, the NHL informed the PA they would not go into another season under this CBA.

2 - The NHL stated at the start of last season that negotiations could happen at any time and they were ready. The only time the NHL stated they would not negotiate is during the playoffs. The PA did not approach the NHL to negotiate until after the season.

3 - The NHL's proposals being unreasonable is a matter of perception. The owners clearly found them to be reasonable and the PA did not. However, of all the proposals set forth to this point, the NHL has tabled at least 6 different proposals. The PA has tabled 2. The NHL's first proposal happened in mid July meaning they have tabled at least one propsal each month. The first PA proposal happened in late August (6 weeks after the NHL's offer) and their 2nd offer comes 12 weeks after their first offer.

For all the player propoganda about the owners not wanting to talk it's hard to argue the player's have been active in seeking solutions.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Clearly people are picking sides. Why did the owners not make a adjustable proposal till after the lockout, why did the players make a workable proposal 70 days after the lockout. Neither party could agree on contractual issues let alone how to split revenue. I'd say both parties had hidden agenda's. Either party wanted to show the other side what they had to lose and to show the other side had solidarity. Be damned with the fans and health of the game. I am no longer choosing a side, I just want a quick outcome which brings hockey back on the ice.

Fair points Joshua. I am biased toward the owners and can't find my way to the middle.

Just read a pile of stuff on twitter. The PA proposal was not met with open arms and now that I dug into it some more I can understand why. The owners have been pretty clear on 50/50. This latest offer from the players suggests it will cost $592 million for the players to be 'made whole' but they are willing to take a $200 million haircut.

The issue is the PA also said they are not interested in the cap being below $67 million at any time, are not interested at all in making back diving contracts a thing of the past, and continue to insist that this is a 50/50 offer.

Bob MacKenzie, one of the most trusted hockey guys in the game is saying the latest PA offer including the make whole provisions of $182 mil yr 1, $128 mil yr 2, $72 mil yr 3, and $1 mil yr 4 works out to be (in % of revenue :

Yr 1 = 55%Yr 2 = 54%Yr 3 = 52%Yr r = 51 %

How is that 50/50???

Bettman has also made some pretty bold comments and the players are lighting up twitter with a lot of negative comments toward the Commish.

Hopefully this is just a pile of posturing for the show.............

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest8627 ( )

Posted - 11/21/2012 : 15:11:07

"Why am I not at the bargining (sic) table?"

To make the suggestion that the league should shrink teams from a fan's perspective is understandable.

But to make the suggestion that the league or players should bring this idea to the bargaining table is laughable.

The league is not interested in lopping off one or two losing teams, let alone six. And even if the league was, they're smart enough to know that the players would never consider this idea.

The players (and NHLPA) are not interested in contraction. There are approximately 650 players in the NHL, and each one of them is a paid member of the NHLPA.

Seriously, does anyone think 520 players (union members) would sell out 130 fellow players to make a few more dollars? The players are motivated (to some extent) to make more money, but not at the expense of their fellow players.

Once again, as a fan, I like the idea (unless I'm a fan in a city which would lose their team), but this would be a very dumb idea to bring to the bargaining table! It won't happen. You can bet on it!

why cant the sides come to an agreement based in differences of money, when both sides lose money every time games are cancelled?It makes extremely little sense to me...

This simple yet poignant point is EXACTLY why I call the players utter fools in this whole thing. They have been bamboozled by Player Reps and Union Bosses.

Unless the player's position was SIGNIFICANTLY improved and they got a new deal within something like a month . . . every day after that it goes from break even to losing money to losing lots of money. And of course, it takes away from the player's playing career, and for the stars of the game, their chance at statistical accomplishments and even HOF glory in a few cases.

Any lockout past a month is total lunacy and a 100% losing proposition for the players.

If Krejci doesn't want to be treated like a barn animal . . . he should realise that if he pouts outside of the farm, no one is going to feed him!

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Guest4350 ( )

Posted - 11/22/2012 : 07:24:38

quote:Originally posted by Beans15The issue is the PA also said they are not interested in the cap being below $67 million at any time, are not interested at all in making back diving contracts a thing of the past, and continue to insist that this is a 50/50 offer.

Bob MacKenzie, one of the most trusted hockey guys in the game is saying the latest PA offer including the make whole provisions of $182 mil yr 1, $128 mil yr 2, $72 mil yr 3, and $1 mil yr 4 works out to be (in % of revenue :

Yr 1 = 55%Yr 2 = 54%Yr 3 = 52%Yr r = 51 %

Well it is 50% HRR. The make whole is to ensure the players current contract are honored without a rollback - AGAIN. That makes sense to me since the owners can't get away scott free when they rushed out to sign contracts before the CBA. If you go to completely 50/50 even with the roll back then it is no longer 50% HRR.

What I don't like is the little guarantee of not less than the amount of the previous season clause. Get that out and it looks like a very reasonable offer. Better than anything the owners have come up with.

To make the suggestion that the league should shrink teams from a fan's perspective is understandable.

But to make the suggestion that the league or players should bring this idea to the bargaining table is laughable.

The league is not interested in lopping off one or two losing teams, let alone six. And even if the league was, they're smart enough to know that the players would never consider this idea.

The players (and NHLPA) are not interested in contraction. There are approximately 650 players in the NHL, and each one of them is a paid member of the NHLPA.

Seriously, does anyone think 520 players (union members) would sell out 130 fellow players to make a few more dollars? The players are motivated (to some extent) to make more money, but not at the expense of their fellow players.

Once again, as a fan, I like the idea (unless I'm a fan in a city which would lose their team), but this would be a very dumb idea to bring to the bargaining table! It won't happen. You can bet on it!

A couple of things:

1 - My comment was laughable. That was the point. You must have missed the emoticon with the monster grin on this face. This one ----->

2 - It would be completely absurd to bring up contraction at the negotiating table. Firstly, because it would produce significantly more ill will between the two sides. Secondly, because the PA has absolutely no say in the matter. If the league wants to cut a team the sole decision making power is with the BOG. The PA can't say or do anything about it.

3 - In my experience of being both union (including being a shop steward) and management I would say this and from being both at the negotiating table as well as being involved in a labour dispute. The UNION as a group would never drop members. Ever. That is how they make money and there is also strength in numbers. But the UNION MEMBERS would stab each other in the back without question. Maybe not to their face, but they would do it. You ask any union member individually if they would take a 20% salary increase if it means the bottom guy on the totem pole gets fired, my experience tells me 9 out 10 guys take that increase. I would take that increase.

***That is my experience only. 100% opinion based and not something I can or will defend. It's just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth**

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Not to play too much of Devil's advocate here, but a couple of points have indeed been raised that deserve at least some rebuttal, if for naught else, there is no hockey to watch and this lively debate at least allows us to talk about it..

First let me go on record as saying I agree with most of the points that the more pro-owner supporters raise, the system is broke and needs to be fixed and at the very least, that revenue sharing of 50-50 is paramount and as I have stated before, I would prefer to see something more along the lines of a favorable split to the owners, as they do take all the financial risks.....but,

1- Union members may indeed be willing to 'stab' each other in the backs when push comes to shove as alluded to, but I think it is very clear that owners/GMs are quite capable of the same, ie: Kevin Lowe/Brian Burke/Darcy Regier and the Dustin Penner/Thomas Vanek experiences showed us. These are the sort of things that have pushed the salaries in the upwards directions they have been. I know, I know, it matter naught as there is a salary floor as well, but just an example of one side being as 'selfish' as the other.

2- Even though I and others favor contraction and relocation, it isn't an option at this time, for either side, and I think once the HRR is split in favor of the owners, there can some recovery for most of those teams not losing millions in the double digits, Phoenix and Columbus most certainly not being in that mix!

3- The players are perhaps being to steadfast in their demands, but in this particular negotiation, they are gaining nothing, period. They are only giving concession. That isn't exactly negotiation, it's more of a ransom holding by the owners, give us what we want or else there is no hockey. Fair enough, that's their prerogative as the the business owners, that doesn't mean the 'employees', should take it, and that is what, to me anyways, is happening.

4- Again, my opinion only, but each time I revisit this thread, I keep thinking to myself, the owners screwed this up, each and every time they have negotiated a CBA, they have locked out the players, negotiated to get some, not all, of their desired points, but yet have still failed each and every time, to negotiate a contract that provides long term financial security, whether it be their inability to control their own spending, competitively against each other for players, or their own assinine agreement to allow the NHLP to get 57 percent of the revenue in the 1st place.

Again, I agree 57 percent is ridiculous, but they signed off on it. If I ask for the moon, and my employer is willing to give it to me, as they have me in a locked out situation, is that my fault? I think not. If that decision creates financial hardship for my employer, I agree something needs to change, but to be locked out with a proverbial gun held to my head, to accept negative concessions would leave me less than inspired to give quickly as well I would think.

I think I am leaning more towards the players becoming more agreeable to end this and get on with business for everyone, but I still see where their resolve is coming from.

Beans, your are taking more heat from all this than you deserve, but I will center you out for a question. You said you have been on both sides of the table in negotiations, but in your honest opinion, while wearing a union members hat, would you be happy with what the NHL is doing/offering/demanding? And how they are doing it?

Above is a link to the latest proposal by the PA. It doesnt get into specifics, but it does highlight the differences between the league and the PA. First off every time there is a new proposal the other side talks about how far the other side is from there position. I dont see it that way. The proposal retained 80% of the current contractual agreements already agreed upon behind closed doors. Bettman and the league objected to the staggered reduction in wage rather than the union going there immediately. Bettman and the league also objected to projected cap proposed by the league. Bettman and company objected to the PA being $182 million away from the leagues latest offer even though the PA moved $200 million in The leagues direction. Bettman stated his and the owners displeasure that the union would not wholeheartedly sign the owners last proposal so that an 82 game season could be saved. That is my slant on Bettman and the owners.

The PA is making a PR spin by saying what they offered is a workable deal. By including a guaranteed cap ceiling floor for the following season they guaranteed the owners would object to this proposal. By waiting this long to make a meaningful offer to the owners they have insured damage to the game. I am not saying this is the PA fault as the owners too dragged there feet but if you really wanted a season this proposal could have been completed months ago. This is my PA rant.

So all in all this is more a pissing match and a PR spin by both sides. If they allowed a fan in the room to make changes to have a season now, the first thing he would do is take the current PA proposal cross a line off the 2014 cap guarantee, knock another $90 million from the contractual guarantees and call it a done deal. Why does this have to be so hard. Do you think the average player will miss the additional $100000.00 over the 5 year term. Does the PA really feel they deserve a guaranteed wage when this could have been ratified over a month ago and we as fans could be watching hockey. My 2 cents.

Above is a link to the latest proposal by the PA. It doesnt get into specifics, but it does highlight the differences between the league and the PA. First off every time there is a new proposal the other side talks about how far the other side is from there position. I dont see it that way. The proposal retained 80% of the current contractual agreements already agreed upon behind closed doors. Bettman and the league objected to the staggered reduction in wage rather than the union going there immediately. Bettman and the league also objected to projected cap proposed by the league. Bettman and company objected to the PA being $182 million away from the leagues latest offer even though the PA moved $200 million in The leagues direction. Bettman stated his and the owners displeasure that the union would not wholeheartedly sign the owners last proposal so that an 82 game season could be saved. That is my slant on Bettman and the owners.

The PA is making a PR spin by saying what they offered is a workable deal. By including a guaranteed cap ceiling floor for the following season they guaranteed the owners would object to this proposal. By waiting this long to make a meaningful offer to the owners they have insured damage to the game. I am not saying this is the PA fault as the owners too dragged there feet but if you really wanted a season this proposal could have been completed months ago. This is my PA rant.

So all in all this is more a pissing match and a PR spin by both sides. If they allowed a fan in the room to make changes to have a season now, the first thing he would do is take the current PA proposal cross a line off the 2014 cap guarantee, knock another $90 million from the contractual guarantees and call it a done deal. Why does this have to be so hard. Do you think the average player will miss the additional $100000.00 over the 5 year term. Does the PA really feel they deserve a guaranteed wage when this could have been ratified over a month ago and we as fans could be watching hockey. My 2 cents.

You make solid points, JoshuaCanada, can't say I disagree with any of it.

Beans and FER also all make good points.

It's funny, the longer this lockout drags on, the closer we all get to each other's points of view, and the more agreeable we get! It's almost as if we are all trying to negotiate and get a deal done . . . unfortunately, we have zero say in it.

Right NOW we have no say in it, that is. When hockey returns? Ooooh yeah, baby . . . we hold all the power - as a group, collectively.

So I say this to you guys:

1) If you want contraction / think contraction is good for the game (I believe the majority of us do here):- don't go to any games this coming season-don't buy any NHL perchandise

2) If you want to tell the owners, players and especially their head agents (Bettman and Fehr) how displease you are at what happened,- don't go to any games this coming season-don't buy any NHL perchandise

3) IF you are that rare bird who thinks that wholeheartedly, the players or owners really stood for something worth fighting about and had a valid and morally sound point to prove in cancelling most if not all of this season . . .- keep going to the games as usual- shell out your hard-earned dough to watch the millionaires play

That's my two cents.I think you guys know where I stand on this . . . As of the end of October, I already began my Zero Money for the NHL policy (until there is a major system change or contraction).

Slozo, I agree with your suggestions and I will likely be doing the same. The challenge is that the NHL makes as much money, if not more money, off of their TV deals and sponsorship. So the struggle is not only keeping your money in your wallet that would normally go directly to the NHL but also punish their sponsors. Companies like Tim Hortons and Air Canada nationally. Locally, Telus, Ford, and Rexall are big sponsors in Edmonton.

That would punish those guys for sure!

The sad part is that for every Slozo and Beans that wants both the players and owners to feel the pain there are 5 guys behind us waiting to spend their money on a ticket we normally would have bought. That may not be same in the US, but in almost every Canadian market I doubt you will see much if any drop in attendance.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Starting to hear stories that the PA has given Fehr the direction to seek decertification if negotiations do not improve in a short period of time.

I think both sides need to learn a better word.

Mediation.

The problem is a mediator will suggest gives and takes from both sides and get a deal done. For some reason neither side will do that.......

To Slozo's point early about the longer it goes on the closer to the same our arguments become. I think that has more to do with apathy at this time. Perhaps speaking for others, but I think we are all at a point were we are sick of choosing sides and just want some effin hockey already.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4178 ( )

Posted - 11/23/2012 : 12:14:18

"Absence makes the heart grow fonder" is a famous quote. And it applies to hockey fans.

It would be great to see fans boycott the game, or suspend their support of the game to show their distaste for this prolonged lockout, but the fans will come back for the most part.

Look at the last lockout for example. It went a whole season (this one still have a chance of being resolved), and fans made the same comments. Many fans claimed they would never watch another game, but the fans returned, and ticket prices went up (even during tough economic times), and league revenues went up at the same time.

Here's the thing. The fans most upset by the lockout are the die-hard fans. And die-hard fans will always come back. They love the game too much. And while they despise the lockout (and pick sides to blame), as soon as the game is back, they will be back too.

I remember the last lockout very well, and heard the comments about boycotting the game, etc. But it didn't happen. I wonder how many fans cancelled their season tickets? I know a lot of season ticket holders, and they all despised the last lockout (as they do this one), but I don't remember anyone cancelling their season tickets, and I haven't heard from one season ticket holder who plans to cancel their season tickets this time around.

I'm in a Canadian market though, but assumingly, one would think that season ticket holders in other markets must be big fans of the game too. I don't think the increase in league revenues since the last lockout can be solely attributed to the Canadian teams. (And fans.)

When play is resumed, I wonder what kind of trinket the NHL will give out to their season ticket holders? After the last lockout, the NHL handed out miniature Stanley Cups to all fans who attended the first home game of the season.

This time around, I would much rather they (the NHL and NHLPA) give the fans a long-term CBA, so we don't have to go through this again in 5 or 7 years.

While I am firmly entrenched in the middle, I believe mediation was proposed by the PA and turned down by the League. If Fehr and the PA is considering Decertification the League would be in its best interests to agree to mediation. Too many legal avenues available should the Decertification become a reality.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Starting to hear stories that the PA has given Fehr the direction to seek decertification if negotiations do not improve in a short period of time.

I think both sides need to learn a better word.

Mediation.

The problem is a mediator will suggest gives and takes from both sides and get a deal done. For some reason neither side will do that.......

To Slozo's point early about the longer it goes on the closer to the same our arguments become. I think that has more to do with apathy at this time. Perhaps speaking for others, but I think we are all at a point were we are sick of choosing sides and just want some effin hockey already.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Help me understand, how does decertification affect individual rights of players. They collectively have no voice, but individually can make legal challenges against the league? Do this remove the status of player/owner contractual obligations

As I understand it, decertification basically means the Union is no longer the barganing agent for the players. Each player would have their own agreements with each team and since the union is gone, so is the CBA. Without the CBA you also have no rules governing player contract, free agency, arbitration, etc. Essentially it creates chaos. Without a CBA, you can not have a lock out so the judicial system will be forced to rule.

The NFLPA tried the approach during their last negotiations. The initial judge ruled in favour of the players to decertify and the union backed Drew Brees, Payton Manning, and Tom Brady with lawsuits towards their respective teams for breech of contract. Following that, 2 or 3 other levels of judges ruled against the players tossing out those individual lawsuits and forced both sides back to the table.

That is a very layman's explaination and I likely got some things wrong. Bob MacKenzie also talked about this on TSN today. You might want to check out this link for the explaination from a guy far smarter than I.

Note to well wishers. Should the PA go the route of decertification, 2013-2014 season is gone. The league is in there best interests to stop this from happening. The players would only hurt themselves and if this is the option currently being proposed by Fehr and company I may swing to the Owners side in this debate.

On another note Bettman has cancelled 2 more weeks of scheduled games. So as of today at a cost of $20 million per day, the league will lose $240 million rather than accept the terms of the PA proposal which was asking for an additional $192 million. This has gone long past the point were money is a factor for the owners. Pride is now at stake, as they no longer wish to lose this round of the CBA, even though they are causing an equal share of the damage and seeing greater loss than what is on the table. The players of course will lose a similar share by not accepting the proposal numbers of the NHL's 82 game season.

How to pick a favorite in this school yard fight between these 2 parties?

Let's not confuse revenue for profits. The NHL owners are making around 4% of the revenues so that $20 million per day is just $800,000. Compared to the $10 million in actual money the players are losing, I think I know who can last longer.

Lets not forget that 18 teams lost money. Everyday the lock out goes on is another day those teams are in a break even position.

From a financial standpoint, the players can not win this battle. At the point there is nothing more to gain and only more loss. As the lock it drags on the owners Make Whole number will continue to get smaller.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 11/23/2012 : 22:53:11

I don't dispute that the players have more to lose as the lockout continues, but let's not confuse profit margins of an NHL team which is in full operation mode (games being played) vs. the current lockout situation. The 4% figure does not apply to the current lockout situation.

Assuming 18 teams lost money last season, it is not accurate to suggest that these 18 teams (or any other teams) are in a break even position each and every day the lockout continues.

While most NHL teams have either laid off some of their staff or reduced front office staff hours (wages), they still have large non-player payroll costs to pay. Take a look at an average NHL team's directory, and you will see 50-100 employees who for the most part still need to be paid. Add costs like rent, office overhead, travel (for gm's, coaches, scouts, etc.), building costs (for some franchises), etc., I speculate most teams will lose (incur costs) in the neighbourhood of $10 - $15 million if the lockout lasts a full season.

Once again, I don't dispute that the players have more to lose, but NHL teams also lose each and every day the lockout continues. Just not the same extent to how much the players are losing.

Getting back to what the owners are losing per day, assuming the $20 million per day is accurate, when you subtract player costs (and related costs like travel, etc.) or any costs they're not paying right now, I think teams are probably still on the hook for 15-20% of this amount, not 4% as suggested.

Still not the same (or as much) as what the players are losing, but every day the lockout continues, both sides are kissing away money they will never recover. No matter how this works out, we have now reached a point where hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost, for which will never be recovered.

Unless, of course, the NHL and NHLPA are right (or believe) that fans will come back bigger than ever (kinda like last time), to negate any losses incurred by the lockout.

They can't be certain about future revenues (and fan support) though, so it comes down to this. Both sides (millionaires and billionaires) don't want to "lose" this battle, so they can "afford" to be stubborn. That's the biggest challenge to solving the lockout. Both sides are very competitive, and want to win (albeit at the same time while they're losing money) this battle.

I agree with that the players cannot win this battle. I think they've already lost. The NHL is not going to give them more the longer the lockout continues. They players will never recover what they've lost (and continue to lose) as the lockout continues.

This is no longer (if it ever was) about raising the average player's salary from $2.3 million to $2.7 million, or keeping it close to $2.3 million, and not going backwards to a (measily) average player's salary of $2 million a year, It's now about pride and saving face. And that's the biggest challenge facing this stage of negotiations.

Good point guest, and I think most people appreciate the owners are also losing money. I think your assessment of $10-$15 million of loss is incredibly high considering the players and associated ravel, equipment, medical cost, etc equates to at least 90% of the costs. Lets also not forget that many of these owners are still drawing in cash from deals associated with the team.

My only point was to say that when the media releases these figures the loss to the owner is not purely out of pocket.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

While the Teams have generated TV rights, the amount is $200 million per year. I dont think merchandise is flying of the shelves, no ticket seats for revenue, food and beer sales flat (love that analogy). I get that the 57% player share comes out of the equasion, but after cost associated with travel and otherwise have been deducted from this amount I think the guests assesment of $10-15 million loss for a lost year, for the average team sounds about right. Some teams might be benefiting from this lockout as there losses may be less. But I know for a fact the big teams TO, NY, Detroit, Boston, hell even Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal are really feeling the loss as playing hockey makes them money. So in the end the lockout really only benefits the teams in the sunbelt area who cant sell hockey at a profit. Once the CBA is ratified there investment could be a much small portion than what it was prior to the lockout. The cost saving associated with the HRR will likely be less than the loss in revenue. Again why do I care if this benefits the sunbelt teams. Why do traditional hockey markets have to suffer so you can buy a Pheonix gameday ticket included with a bucket of chicken and pick your seat out of 10000 empty seats.

quote:Originally posted by Beans15

Good point guest, and I think most people appreciate the owners are also losing money. I think your assessment of $10-$15 million of loss is incredibly high considering the players and associated ravel, equipment, medical cost, etc equates to at least 90% of the costs. Lets also not forget that many of these owners are still drawing in cash from deals associated with the team.

My only point was to say that when the media releases these figures the loss to the owner is not purely out of pocket.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Edited by - JOSHUACANADA on 11/24/2012 07:57:18

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 11/24/2012 : 10:16:15

If you take a suggested "loss" of $800k per day, this translates into approximately $130 million in "losses" over a full season. Broken down by team, this works out to approximately $4 million per team. Which works out to approximately $27k per team per day. I think $800k per day number is incredibly low.

FYI - for my calculations, I used the daily lossed revenues number ($20 million), and divided it by projected league revenues for the year ($3.2 billion), and this works out to 160 days.

If you believe "for each and every day the lockout continues is another day where teams (18 teams which lost money last season) are in a break even position," this is simply not true.

But I'm a bit confused on what's being presented. Breaking even is not the same as losing $4 million. Regardless, I think both numbers are way too low.

I stick by my numbers, and speculate teams will lose $10-15 million if the season is lost (some will lose a bit less, and some will lose more), but what's $10-15 million to a billionaire team owner?

They can afford to stick it out. Sure, most of the players can too, but is it really in their best interest?

Alright guest, you stick to your numbers and I'll use the numbers that are the industry standard in sport franchise values.

The $4 million a season is a very low profit for the owners. Why do you think the payers are locked out? It might because the owners are making a horrible return on their investments and need to find a way tone profitable at a reasonable rate.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Guest4377 ( )

Posted - 11/24/2012 : 13:23:32

You're missing the point. (Perhaps deliberately.)

You stated that 18 teams lost money last year. I'm not disputing that.

I also don't dispute that the owners are making a horrible return (overall), and things need to change.

But for you to state that the 18 teams which lost money are breaking even during the lockout is what I'm disputing.

And for you to go on and state that teams are losing the exact same amount of money (average of $4 million per team) is contradictory to your break even assertion. Furthermore, to think that by playing or not playing, that the losses would be the same defies reason.

Perhaps you are also missing the point and likely because I was not very clear. I agree that teams are all losing at least some money. But to say that a team's front office cost are $10-15 million is my dispute. I disagree but I don't think either of us can make any kind of factual estimate of that number.

The break even point is that I don't believe they are any worse off in a lock out then while playing. Perhaps that point was not clear. I am not saying they are breaking even at 0, they are not losing more money than they would have playing.

The teams that are in the worst situation are the money making teams because they are at a loss and it's likely massive. Thinking of the monster money teams, TO would go from $80+ million in profit to at least some kind of loss.

More than anything, my point was that when the media say the league lose x dollars a day compare to the player it is not apples to apples. The players are losing 100% of the money being reported. The owners are not losing nearly to the same level.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!